Pages

Friday, January 16, 2009

So remember the post when I wrote about the rumors of Bethanie Mattek's wedding based on tennis scribe Stephanie Myles' story in The Montreal Gazette? And remember when I confirmed the rumors with images and info from her November nuptials??

Well someone wasn't too happy with me.

Imagine my shock to find this oh-so pleasant email from Stephanie greeting me this morning in which she assumes I got the photos from her (false) and not B's publicist at CMPR (true), calls me "irresponsible", and makes all kinds of other strange statements:

Hi Rich,

Please remove the Bethanie Mattek wedding photos from your fabulous blog.They're not yours to reproduce there; they were obtained by my newspaper and remain our property.

You can link to my blog, but that's as far as it can go. It's called intellectual and copyright property. You haven't even given me the courtesy of doing that, which is irresponsible.

A word of advice. If they cared to, Getty Images could also tell you to take all the photos they own off your blog, too, by the way. They're a for-profit company that charges people for the use of their photos. If bloggers just take them and use them for free, they'd be out of business pretty quickly. They probably just haven't found you yet, because from what I can see, you abuse the notion pretty freely.

Just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean anyone can just use stuff free of charge. A stunning concept, I know.

For example, I can use Getty and AFP on my blog because our newspaper has a contract with them and pays them, even though I don't often do it, because I have a huge log of photos that I took the last 12 months at all the Grand Slam tournaments and others. But that's the distinction.

Thanks for you prompt attention to this.

Stephanie MylesThe Gazette

Wait - no "thanks" for linking to her (maybe) highly read and insightful Open Court column? No invitations to "do lunch" and gossip about the Tours and dating rituals of other ballers (and drink ourselves silly of course)??

What a bitch!! It's one thing she's writing to you under the impression you "stole" her pictures, but another thing HOW she does it.

"It's called intellectual." Did she just call you stupid??

"A stunning concept, I know." Did she just call you stupud AGAIN??

And what is with her on that Getty thing? Is she like, their lawyer?

Sorry, you Stephanie person you, but to me it sounds like someone's really bitter her column isn't as popular as this blog. You wouldn't make such a fuzz if you didn't believe the pictures would be offered to a much wider audience here, would you?

hahaha this is lame!especially when she sais Getty didn't find you yet!LFMAO yeah, I think they should send an FBI to get you, Rich!it's highly dangerous matter, I mean Bethanie Who? wedding photos, oh come on!and can I add Stephanie who?

It might be condescending of her, but I think it's poor form to post her e-mail and also to mock her in public when she addressed you/the issue in private! This blog seems to have gotten more snarky and unpleasant this year.

well anon, there isn't an issue, and of course we're gonna mock her attempt of accusing man of STEALING, when nothing has been stolen!i mean, to attack someone when not knowing for sure he's quilty is elementary school lame!she should have at least check politely with Rich if he infact did took her pics, then adress the "issue" like a human being.this way she created of herself an issue-and it's called "being a total ass"!so, who's laughing now?i bet she's not, she should click send, after knowing the situation!Rich,we love ya, and your blog!!